So I think I should develop about what I mean by historical AI and answer some of the comment.

quote:

The AI will be easy.

Yes, it will be easier. First, I don't care. I don't have tens years of practice of Wif. Second, I never say that there should not be an optimized AI. You can see the historical AI as the easy one, and the non historical optmized acording to the elite player experiences as the hard AI.

quote:

So, if I am playing against an historical Axis AIO, there is no need to defend Malta at all.

Here, there is a false conception about what is an historical AI. It would be stupid to rely purely on a define set of event, considering that even the historical leader did consider other option. So i think that an attack on Malta is still inthe historical psychology. What is not is Italy waiting for Germany to start its war. Italy did decide to start the war by themselves (but again we can make some randomness as to the exact date of attack or a point where Italy won't attack the CW if it is too well garisonned, but they shoud go for it if the historical condition are there). Other Example are US Germany first strategy and Japan not attacking USSR (if they have lost the first border war) and not attacking CW early or Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

Thought again, historical leader psychology does not mean that the AI should be set to follow the exact pattern of history. Actually, I thing that if the player is doing too well (that is going to a point where historical reaction cannot be guessed) a trigger should pass some or all AI to optimized AI. Actual plan (like USSR plan to attack germany) should still be avialable to an historical AI.

So I think I should develop about what I mean by historical AI and answer some of the comment.

quote:

The AI will be easy.

Yes, it will be easier. First, I don't care. I don't have tens years of practice of Wif. Second, I never say that there should not be an optimized AI. You can see the historical AI as the easy one, and the non historical optmized acording to the elite player experiences as the hard AI.

quote:

So, if I am playing against an historical Axis AIO, there is no need to defend Malta at all.

Here, there is a false conception about what is an historical AI. It would be stupid to rely purely on a define set of event, considering that even the historical leader did consider other option. So i think that an attack on Malta is still inthe historical psychology. What is not is Italy waiting for Germany to start its war. Italy did decide to start the war by themselves (but again we can make some randomness as to the exact date of attack or a point where Italy won't attack the CW if it is too well garisonned, but they shoud go for it if the historical condition are there). Other Example are US Germany first strategy and Japan not attacking USSR (if they have lost the first border war) and not attacking CW early or Hitler declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

Thought again, historical leader psychology does not mean that the AI should be set to follow the exact pattern of history. Actually, I thing that if the player is doing too well (that is going to a point where historical reaction cannot be guessed) a trigger should pass some or all AI to optimized AI. Actual plan (like USSR plan to attack germany) should still be avialable to an historical AI.

Well, that's whole 'nother kettle of fish.

You described what you believe would be an 'historical' AIO. It wouldn't surprise me if there would be hundreds of different opinions on what 'historical' would be. Afterall, just counting you and me, we have 2 substantially different views already. As a programmer, I insist on tight definitions of what I am suppose to code. Writing a program to "see what happens" and "modify accordingly" makes for a very painful experience, with pitiful results.

I was not sure that reducing the stategic option of the AI would simply or not the programming of the AI. I won't mind if it is not in the first game.

What I would like is to be able to face an AI that "try" (emphasize the "try") to mimmic the historical leader strategic thinking and believes. Otherwise I am quite open.

quote:

As a programmer, I insist on tight definitions of what I am suppose to code.

You remind a friend of mine when I request some program to help for our games...

I understand your concern, even thought I know good part about WWII and game theory, I thought that someone with more historical knowledge of WWII and WiF should be chosen to make a tight definition. That why I was voluntarily vague.

One of the limitation, I really find, is that some of the thinking to be pertinent take into account what will happen after the game (Patton in Flame :p) and somehow that should be important for the game but this is not for this thread.

I was not sure that reducing the stategic option of the AI would simply or not the programming of the AI. I won't mind if it is not in the first game.

What I would like is to be able to face an AI that "try" (emphasize the "try") to mimmic the historical leader strategic thinking and believes. Otherwise I am quite open.

quote:

As a programmer, I insist on tight definitions of what I am suppose to code.

You remind a friend of mine when I request some program to help for our games...

I understand your concern, even thought I know good part about WWII and game theory, I thought that someone with more historical knowledge of WWII and WiF should be chosen to make a tight definition. That why I was voluntarily vague.

One of the limitation, I really find, is that some of the thinking to be pertinent take into account what will happen after the game (Patton in Flame :p) and somehow that should be important for the game but this is not for this thread.

Shannon, I am curious of your definition of an historical AI?

Warspite1

I would be interested to hear what your definition is Skanvak - I must confess I struggle to see how the AI tries to mimic history without making things predictable - and then, if things go badly for the AI (i.e. follow an ahistorical path)...then...what?

Just as important is what the human player is allowed/not allowed to do. Unless there are a whole raft of prohibitions on options for a player to pursue, this won`t work.

To illustrate:

So, world leaders must act historically (within a few allowed deviations). I assume a few "historical givens", many of which are central to WIF rules anyway, e.g:

- A Nazi-Soviet pact has been signed - As per Mein Kampf, Hitler wants Lebensraum and the war will be fought thanks to that one aim; the rest is just a means to that end. However to get to the Soviet Union, Hitler must invade Poland first, and that will bring trouble in the west. - The CW and France must react by declaring war (but neither Chamberlain nor Daladier/Reynaud are prepared/feel able to take the war to Germany). - Roosevelt will not intervene (he realises that Hitler must be stopped and will escalate US entry as much as public opinion allows, but nothing more) - Mussolini, fearing the outcome, will not declare war unless the CW / France are on their last legs and he needs "a few thousand dead to bring to the table" when carving up the French / CW pie. If Hitler rolls a few bad dice early, Italy will not enter the war. - Japan is fighting China and has no wish to look north to the Soviet Union; she needs oil and the other resources that only Malaya, Burma and, in particular, the NEI can give her. If she does not get out of China the USA will embargo vital resources; Japan will not leave China...

So now what? Do the British and French have to land in Norway? If in the real war they had done so before the Germans intervened (as was planned), what would have happened? Does this bring the Norwegians (and possibly the Swedes?) into the Nazi camp?

Having been caught off guard and with the Allies now in northern Norway, maybe the German attack there is less successful - they would certainly not land at Trondheim or anywhere north. With a little success under his belt, does Chamberlain not now get replaced by Churchill? What does that mean in game terms - in historical terms even??

This one event, very early in the war could have completely changed history - but we do not know how - and that is just one of the problems. Or in the historical AI version can the Allies not seek to land in Norway before a German attack?

Suppose in a game the WIF dice god mirrors the real thing and Hitler knocks down Poland, Norway (lets ignore the problem above for the moment), the Low Countries and France. We get to 1941, Italy are in the war and Hitler nows decides it would be a good idea to "kick in the Russian front door so that the whole edifice comes crashing in". What has that meant to the AI? As the Axis player do I need to fear any CW attacks anywhere or will they remain on the defensive and leave me free to build up forces for Barbarossa in peace? Greece, Turkey anywhere?

As the CW player, can I simply forget any fears of Gibraltar being attacked? Will the German AI be able to build any "what if" naval vessels, or can I plan my naval builds with certainty? Can I attack Spain? If so, how will a historical AI react to that? Can Germany launch Sealion??

Must Vichy be declared? What French ships go to the Axis?

Does Mussolini AI have to invade Greece or Yugoslavia? or attack Egypt? It is impossible to have an even vaguely historical AI without one of the first two and definately the latter taking place. What if the latter succeeds and the CW lose Egypt - what happens historically then? How does this affect Japanese intentions? Does Japan ignore everything that may be happening in the near east in order to follow their historical path? Does that mean Australia is always safe from attack?

If, as in the example at the beginning, Italy does not enter the war, are the CW allowed to base additional units in the Far East? Notwithstanding this, does Japan still have to attack Pearl Harbor?

How does this work?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

Me personally, I play WiF rather 'seat of the pants' style, hoping that my unpredictability and flexibility can create unexpected situations for my rivals. Steve however, is the perfect person to figure out an AI because his formidable playing style (his record speaks for itself) is derived from a lengthy and detailed set of 'dos and don'ts' covering practically any situation that can turn any novice into a player. And for the sake of balance, that's usually who he would be teamed with. Trying to create a historical AI I think misses the point. What AI people should want is an AI that can beat them. Notwithstanding how long it will take him to implement his 'rules' into the AI, once he does, we will have an AI that while not unbeatable, will do precisely what the AI should do -e.g. teach people how to play(through example) and challenge even the best players.

I disagree. Thought an AI too easy to beat is boring. Easy is relative; what is easy for someone is not for someone else. And we might want an AI for fun play (for the occasionnal player) and not for competitive training. Beside I never said the AIO opponnent should be historical, I said that I would like to be 2 kind. This is a game I don't see palce for statement like "people should want", in game people should want what they like for fun.

To Warspite1 :

I think you understand my definition (as the points you raised tend to prove it). Your developpement is interesting to definine the decision tree of the country. Which will be needed to decided how the AI will behave. What Shannon means, I think, is that think like is the AI totally predictable or what will be is % of chance of going ahistorical. Which are think to decide (may be a thread of its own). As there would be only one historical AIO (unless we have the code to make the AIO) I though that the exact definition should be discuss as to the detail.

Definition of goal of the historical AIO : to make the layer feel that he wages war again the leader of the times and not again a gamey XXth century WiF player.

quote:

I struggle to see how the AI tries to mimic history without making things predictable

Just again, I don't really care about a strategical predictability in this case (which I won't advocate for the competitive AI).

I am interested by Shannon definition because he states that he has another one and he must have good reason to for it. I wish to know them (I hope I have not been misunderstood).

Warspite1, if that is not enough, may be we should start a separate thread?

I think you understand my definition (as the points you raised tend to prove it). Your developpement is interesting to definine the decision tree of the country.

Warspite1

Skanvak, I raised the questions I did because I genuinely do not understand how a "historical" AI would be expected to work. As Napoleon (I think!?) said "No plan survives contact with the enemy".

Therefore, from the moment the first dice is thrown, what happened historically can go out of the window. If - no, when that happens, what is the point of a historical AI? Nine times out of ten it won`t make sense because the game has moved so far from what really happened.

Have you seen the latest post from Steve on the AI (General) thread? The point I think is that Steve has decided on which way the AI will go and all efforts should be devoted to assisting that.

Just my 2 cents.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

The problem with chess playing programmes is that good ones beat you tactically, not strategically. If a grandmaster can see past their planning horizon, they can win. We don't yet know how to model human strategic planning, although we now have a suspicion based on some recent results in neuroscience. The brain appears to be able to generate a time-space representation of movements that generalises to plans.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin "For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

There is a theorem in game theory that say that finite game like chess are finite, therefore if the computer can calculate all outcome, it will beat a human (well may be because chess is only a tactical game). I think you know this theorem, but it is intersting to hear about progress to understand how human plan.

To Warspite :

I am pretty confident that it is possible about making a decision tree to represent ("try to mimic") the strategic thinking of someone. For example, we know from history how Hitler or Mussolini tend to react when event don't go as planned. What I ask is like trying to programm a prudent AIO or a bold AIO? I think it is possible. If you put it with the goal and assumption of your model, you can make an historical AIO (ok puppet).

I have the feeling that you take the historical aproach to the tactical (operational level) where as I see it on the grand strategic level and behaviour. At this level making a decision tree for what happen when it goes non historic is easier. May there is a problem with the term historic as it tend to refer to fact (like the GErman launch an offensive in the ardennes in winter 44-45) is quite meaningless, I agree, saying that the German should plan an offensive with whatever forces to acttacks western allied if they have landed in continentall Europe has a meaning, and an historicla flavour.

A common example for WWII is leadership of Japan. One can agrue that Japan sign peace with China and chose a pacific way rather than challenge an open that it cannot beat (I think that Japan get more VP this way). Historically, the Japanese leadership cannot chose this option because it is not in their mindset. By the way this is a restriction put on the player and no one complain...

quote:

Have you seen the latest post from Steve on the AI (General) thread? The point I think is that Steve has decided on which way the AI will go and all efforts should be devoted to assisting that.

I have to agree that all effort should go to finishing the first AIO first as I want the game out.

Hi, I am new to the forum as registered member, although I have been following the development of this game and I look forward to it's release.. This is my first question and I appologize if this question already have been answered. Will Days of Decision be in the computergame when it is released?

Hi, I am new to the forum as registered member, although I have been following the development of this game and I look forward to it's release.. This is my first question and I appologize if this question already have been answered. Will Days of Decision be in the computergame when it is released?

I'm not very good at World in flames, but I really like the game.

Paerhc

Welcome to the forum. The threads at the top of the forum are a good way to get an overview of the game and its development.

Here is a section from the Players Manual: === 2.2.2 World in Flames Add-ons from Australian Design Group

Additional optional rules:  Scrap units (this is not optional in WIF FE; it is in MWIF)  Add Chinese cities (to accommodate the increased number of hexes in China)  Unlimited breakdown (since there is no printing constraint on the number of unit counters)  Extended game (a commonly used house rule in over-the-board games)  Naval offensive chit (an old variation on the optional rule for offensive chits)  Breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact (makes it somewhat easier for Germany to declare war on the USSR in 1941).

I have thought long and hard on what should be in this game, and yes, a Beer fridge should definitely be included with the game. I know its going to add some cost, but I don't think it can be optional.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak A common example for WWII is leadership of Japan. One can agrue that Japan sign peace with China and chose a pacific way rather than challenge an open that it cannot beat (I think that Japan get more VP this way). Historically, the Japanese leadership cannot chose this option because it is not in their mindset. By the way this is a restriction put on the player and no one complain...

That's a pretty interesting thought, like that of Germany offering the Ukrainians an alliance and not(or holding off from)trying to kill them all while they helped Germany defeat Stalin. It wasn't the mindset. Such callous brutality would not be fair to omit. It's interesting how China served the same sociopolitical purpose for Japan as the USSR did for Germany.

That's a pretty interesting thought, like that of Germany offering the Ukrainians an alliance and not(or holding off from)trying to kill them all while they helped Germany defeat Stalin. It wasn't the mindset. Such callous brutality would not be fair to omit. It's interesting how China served the same sociopolitical purpose for Japan as the USSR did for Germany.

Actually, I think that part of the Nazi politics is lost in most game. The need for there policies that are never portrait in games due to poltical correctness, was actually costly on economy and rail capacity. I would like to see this portrait with an option to play non-nazi Germany without the hinderance of the nazi doctrine (well and without the SS, thought they would get more whermacht unit). That would show how bad nazi doctrine was.

AS for DoD. The game it would be nice to have it anyway in a later expansion.

That's a pretty interesting thought, like that of Germany offering the Ukrainians an alliance and not(or holding off from)trying to kill them all while they helped Germany defeat Stalin. It wasn't the mindset. Such callous brutality would not be fair to omit. It's interesting how China served the same sociopolitical purpose for Japan as the USSR did for Germany.

Actually, I think that part of the Nazi politics is lost in most game. The need for there policies that are never portrait in games due to poltical correctness, was actually costly on economy and rail capacity. I would like to see this portrait with an option to play non-nazi Germany without the hinderance of the nazi doctrine (well and without the SS, thought they would get more whermacht unit). That would show how bad nazi doctrine was.

AS for DoD. The game it would be nice to have it anyway in a later expansion.

Warspite1

If you want to play a non-Nazi version that`s easy; after setting up the board and the pieces, prepare for the first turn. At this point, the Germans and the French/British governments agree a compromise solution to put right the problems (real or perceived) that were caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The two sides shake hands and put their counters away. The Japanese, now realising they would face the full wrath of the un-molested British Empire, the USA and the French Empire, decide to seek a compromise solution in China. All Chinese, American and Japanese counters are then put away.

The End.

In any game that depicts the Second World War to any realistic degree, the effects of Nazi rule are evidenced in what Germany can / can`t do - can / can`t build etc.

However, take away the Nazi rule and - assuming you have a major re-armament program and then a war - even without Hitler in power - surely everything changes. E.g. as one example, without the Nazis, maybe the Luftwaffe would have been more effective (no Goering)...maybe less (the Luftwaffe benefitted early on from being the most Nazi of the services) - who knows?

And then what about the benefits to German technology that would have accrued thanks to them using Jewish brain power rather than destroying it? Does that mean they get the Atom bomb or rocketry quicker??

Without Hitler, do the Germans need/want Lebensraum? Do the Soviets even enter the war. What are the German war aims - smash the French? the British? what?

Without Hitler and the Nazis, even if you get a world war - it is in all likelihood going to be completely different to what actually happened such that its complete fantasy.

Ultimately, the Germans were limited largely by their economic situation, lack of raw materials etc etc - and that changes little regardless of who is in power.

Although I have never played it, I like the idea of DOD as I imagine you can use it to get completely new ahistorical situations if you ever need a break from the historical version. However, even this must - and I`m sure does - use the basic and most important features of the thirties - the most cruicial being the existence of Hitler and the Nazis.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/17/2009 9:30:48 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

If you want to play a non-Nazi version that`s easy; after setting up the board and the pieces, prepare for the first turn. At this point, the Germans and the French/British governments agree a compromise solution to put right the problems (real or perceived) that were caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The two sides shake hands and put their counters away. The Japanese, now realising they would face the full wrath of the un-molested British Empire, the USA and the French Empire, decide to seek a compromise solution in China. All Chinese, American and Japanese counters are then put away.

The End.

Nice, but I don't think it would have gone this way. Germany was wanting to attack Poland any way, and England/France would not allow a redisign of the Dantzig Corridor so war was a high possibility even without nazi germany. If it was acceptable to give Dantzig back to German then it would have been given at the time. Second, I think that a war with the USSR was a possibility bu less likely. We consider nazi as ultimate evil today it was not so at the time it was just a nationalist dictatorship not very different from the 2nd Reich that fought in WWI.

quote:

What are the German war aims - smash the French? the British? what?

Anyway bottom line is that the Weimar republic had plan to attack Poland and its military establisment was preparing for it before Hitler rise to power.

You have pointed out a lot of good question that it will change. My point is about pedagogy. As I do think that Germany would have gone to war, I think it is a good way to give the player the possibility to fight a non-evil Germany and see the benefit that it would be. Has I really think that nazi doctrine domaged a lot the german war effort.

quote:

Do the Soviets even enter the war.

Definetly yes, the Soviet of the time are expansionnist they would have enter the war either by themselves or been attack by Germany over tension on the baltic states I think. I remind you that the Soviet lauch an invasion of Poland even before WWII.

quote:

Although I have never played it, I like the idea of DOD as I imagine you can use it to get completely new ahistorical situations if you ever need a break from the historical version. However, even this must - and I`m sure does - use the basic and most important features of the thirties - the most cruicial being the existence of Hitler and the Nazis.

Yes DoD assumme that Germany is Nazi, CW is Democracy and Soviet is communist. For the other there is an optional rule that allow them to change side after a coup d'้tat / several political drift).

If you want to play a non-Nazi version that`s easy; after setting up the board and the pieces, prepare for the first turn. At this point, the Germans and the French/British governments agree a compromise solution to put right the problems (real or perceived) that were caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The two sides shake hands and put their counters away. The Japanese, now realising they would face the full wrath of the un-molested British Empire, the USA and the French Empire, decide to seek a compromise solution in China. All Chinese, American and Japanese counters are then put away.

The End.

Nice, but I don't think it would have gone this way. Germany was wanting to attack Poland any way, and England/France would not allow a redisign of the Dantzig Corridor so war was a high possibility even without nazi germany. If it was acceptable to give Dantzig back to German then it would have been given at the time. Second, I think that a war with the USSR was a possibility bu less likely. We consider nazi as ultimate evil today it was not so at the time it was just a nationalist dictatorship not very different from the 2nd Reich that fought in WWI.

quote:

What are the German war aims - smash the French? the British? what?

Anyway bottom line is that the Weimar republic had plan to attack Poland and its military establisment was preparing for it before Hitler rise to power.

You have pointed out a lot of good question that it will change. My point is about pedagogy. As I do think that Germany would have gone to war, I think it is a good way to give the player the possibility to fight a non-evil Germany and see the benefit that it would be. Has I really think that nazi doctrine domaged a lot the german war effort.

quote:

Do the Soviets even enter the war.

Definetly yes, the Soviet of the time are expansionnist they would have enter the war either by themselves or been attack by Germany over tension on the baltic states I think. I remind you that the Soviet lauch an invasion of Poland even before WWII.

quote:

Although I have never played it, I like the idea of DOD as I imagine you can use it to get completely new ahistorical situations if you ever need a break from the historical version. However, even this must - and I`m sure does - use the basic and most important features of the thirties - the most cruicial being the existence of Hitler and the Nazis.

Yes DoD assumme that Germany is Nazi, CW is Democracy and Soviet is communist. For the other there is an optional rule that allow them to change side after a coup d'้tat / several political drift).

Warspite1

Its an interesting thought; what would have happened in the twenties and thirties if there was no Hitler? Who knows? I don`t - but its interesting to hypothesise.

I find your comment about a "non-evil" Germany - yet one that wants to obliterate Poland - difficult to envisage, but to continue the debate, lets say that whoever replaced Hitler was "more reasonable" and just wanted old German territory back - but had re-armed Germany to the extent that the British and French were more than wary of another war.

To say that the British and French would not have agreed a settlement on Poland is not necessarily correct in my view. Remember, Chamberlain and Daladier agreed to the carve up of Czechoslovakia (no small thing) in order to avoid war. The reason they dug their heels in over Poland was because of Hitler reneging on his promise of "no more territorial designs in Europe" and took over the rump of poor Czechoslovakia. At long last the Allies realised Hitler was as mad as a balloon and realised he had to be stopped. What if this "more reasonable" German government had not done that and simply stated it wanted the Danzig corridor back - and so link major Germany to East Prussia? Would the Allies have really said no?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/19/2009 11:31:23 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

Given Stalin's behaviour in the 30s (e.g. his apparent willingness to cut a deal with England and France had they taken the notion seriously), I would not agree that his policy was explicitly expansionist in the way that Hitler's was.

In some respects Soviet policy at the time strikes me as 'jumping on the bandwagon'. When it was clear that Britain and France were going to appease Germany in 1938, Soviet policy towards the Nazis grew increasingly conciliatory up to and including the Nazi-Soviet pact. The Soviets actually increased their shipments of materiel to Germany in the months leading up to Barbarossa. Despite his ideological animus towards Nazism, Stalin was in many ways the ultimate Nazi collaborator.

Also, it was only once they had their deal with Hitler and the latter had begun the war that the Soviets began their own territorial expansion - which I should add was, until the Red Army marched into the Balkans and Central Europe in 1944-1945, limited to regaining Tsarist imperial territory. Stalin was a revanchist in that respect more than an expansionist. And, like Poland, Rumania and Hungary, which all had revanchist ambitions at the expense of their neighbours from 1938-1940, the USSR even had to cut a deal with Germany to make it happen.

To be sure, the USSR wanted to spread Soviet Communism world-wide. That's why they went to so much effort to encourage and support Communist parties and revolutionaries elsewhere. But the failure of the invasion of Poland in the '20s had diminished their appetite for external expansion via traditional military aggression.

ORIGINAL: composer99 Also, it was only once they had their deal with Hitler and the latter had begun the war that the Soviets began their own territorial expansion - which I should add was, until the Red Army marched into the Balkans and Central Europe in 1944-1945, limited to regaining Tsarist imperial territory. Stalin was a revanchist in that respect more than an expansionist. And, like Poland, Rumania and Hungary, which all had revanchist ambitions at the expense of their neighbours from 1938-1940, the USSR even had to cut a deal with Germany to make it happen.

I don't think the Finns would agree with this(nor the Poles -though they were in the Tsar's empire).

ORIGINAL: composer99 Also, it was only once they had their deal with Hitler and the latter had begun the war that the Soviets began their own territorial expansion - which I should add was, until the Red Army marched into the Balkans and Central Europe in 1944-1945, limited to regaining Tsarist imperial territory. Stalin was a revanchist in that respect more than an expansionist. And, like Poland, Rumania and Hungary, which all had revanchist ambitions at the expense of their neighbours from 1938-1940, the USSR even had to cut a deal with Germany to make it happen.

I don't think the Finns would agree with this(nor the Poles -though they were in the Tsar's empire).

Warspite1

Why? Finland was at one time part of Russia - I believe dating from Napoleonic times.

Just as the Soviets - still under Stalin - formed a defensive "Iron Curtain" on its western borders after WWII, so I believe Stalin wanted a similar buffer in the 1930`s/1940`s and parts of each of Finland, the Baltic States, Romania and Poland were to provide this. However, I do not think for a second that Stalin would have undertaken any of these actions had they not got the agreement - implicit or otherwise - of Germany - or even France/Britain had a deal been struck with them instead.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/19/2009 11:49:57 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

Indeed, Finland became a fully independent state after Russia's defeat in the First World War, so there was a very recent precedent for Finland being within the Russian 'sphere of influence'. The Finns appear to be rather fortunate that Stalin didn't want all of Finland to turn into a puppet state like he did with Poland, Hungary, etc. after the war.

I think Finland was lucky that the Russian General Mannerheim decided they worth more than russian and protect the Finnish interest and independance with a rare success, otherwise Finland would have been turn into a puppet state.

I think Finland was lucky that the Russian General Mannerheim decided they worth more than russian and protect the Finnish interest and independance with a rare success, otherwise Finland would have been turn into a puppet state.

Warspite1

Mannerheim was Finnish .

Whether Russia wanted all or some of Finland is not the point. The point being made is that Stalin only acted safe in the knowledge that having signed a pact with the Nazis and with France and Britain otherwise engaged, he would face no opposition. Without such a pact Stalin would not have acted in this way.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

ORIGINAL: composer99 To be sure, the USSR wanted to spread Soviet Communism world-wide. That's why they went to so much effort to encourage and support Communist parties and revolutionaries elsewhere. But the failure of the invasion of Poland in the '20s had diminished their appetite for external expansion via traditional military aggression.

The Polish began that war invading Ukraine. They was pull back by Tuchačevskij (ah, what an HQ, eternal DOD question for the russian player: should i shot him and get 2 more PE or not?)

That is correct, Mannerheim is finnish (I read somewhere something that make me think he was Russian, I should have double check). But he was a Russian General and made all he carrer in the Russian Army (including school) before independance of Finland (of which he always commanded the troop and sometime govern the country). Well without him, Finland would have been annexed by the soviet.